Welcome to the website of the Digital Media Law Project. The DMLP was a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society from 2007 to 2014. Due to popular demand the Berkman Klein Center is keeping the website online, but please note that the website and its contents are no longer being updated. Please check any information you find here for accuracy and completeness.

In relevant part, section 512(f) provides that a copyright owner who makes knowing false statements in a takedown notice
"shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees,
incurred by [by the 512(f) plaintiff] as the result of the service
provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling
access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing."

The court interpreted "any damages" broadly to include any harm proximately caused by the wrongful takedown, including non-economic damages for violation/chilling of First Amendment rights. This might seem like a big victory for Lenz and her ilk, but it's largely symbolic. As Ben Sheffner puts it (somewhat uncharitably, but nonetheless incisively):

But I don't see how Lenz suffered more than nominal losses here; she
was simply annoyed that her video (hosted for free by YouTube) was
temporarily removed, and she found some lawyers/activists who jumped at
the chance to make a federal case out of it.

I can't imagine that other, future cases are going to involve much more in the way of injury that any ordinary jury will be interested in compensating. But, of course, victims of wrongful takedowns do commonly suffer direct economic injury, like legal fees associated with evaluating the takedown notice and filing a counter-notice. No mental gymnastics were required for Judge Fogel to find these costs covered by the statute. So, Lenz's attorneys' fees incurred prior to filing her 512(f) claim are recoverable under the statute, assuming she ultimately makes out her case on the merits (a not insubstantial caveat).

But the big-ticket issue was whether attorneys' fees incurred after filing the 512(f) lawsuit are recoverable. Here, Judge Fogel interpreted the statute to exclude such fees, in part because these fees are not causally connected to the takedown but to the plaintiff's own lawsuit, and in part because the Copyright Act already has a fee-shifting provision, 17 U.S.C. § 505, which allows a court, in its discretion, to award a prevailing party attorneys' fees in copyright cases. While not entirely surprising and hard to disagree with as a matter of statutory interpretation, this ruling may drain much of the force out of 512(f) as a practical deterrent to abusive takedowns because automatic, post-suit attorneys' fees are the only item of damages that could foreseeably get big enough to make big content owners uncomfortable.

Not only must the 512(f) plaintiff overcome the Rossi case, which
effectively mooted claims for erroneous takedown notices, but this
ruling illustrates how hard 512(f) plaintiffs have to work to find
compensable damages. We don't see many 512(f) cases being brought.
Watching this case, it's easy to see why.

This point was not lost on Judge Fogel, who suggested (with the help of some scholarly commentary) that Congress likely intended the extra-judicial counter-notice procedure, not 512(f), to provide the primary mechanism for dealing with abusive takedowns.

Syndicate

About this Blog

Contributors to this blog include a diverse group of lawyers, law professors, law students, and others with an interest in new media. The views expressed are solely those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the DMLP or the institutions with which they are affiliated. To learn more about the DMLP, please click here.

We are looking for contributing authors with expertise in media law, intellectual property, First Amendment, and other related fields to join us as guest bloggers. If you are interested, please contact us for more details.

Newsletters

Sign up for our monthly newsletter

Digital Media Law Briefs

Event Announcements

E-mail *

Main menu

Copyright 2007-16 Digital Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted,content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details.Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.